International Research Journal of Environment Sciences________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414

Vol. 3(11), 65-70, November (2014) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci.

Mining and People’s Protest: A Study in India’s North East

Bhattacharjee Jhimli
Department of Sociology, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, INDIA
Available online at: www.isca.in, www.isca.me
Received 10th June 2014, revised 11th August 2014, accepted 4st November 2014
Abstract
Drawing on three case studies, this paper highlights the opposition faced by mining projects in North East India. The
paper emphasizes on the issues on which opposition is made by people’s groups and the strategies involved in engaging in
activism against mining. It has been seen that the mining over here has a similarity of issues of opposition which are found
in the other parts of the country as well as in the world. These issues involve threat to cultural erosion, displacement of
people and impact on environment.

Keywords: Mining, protest, environment, North East India.

Introduction Mining has a multiple of affects starting from deforestation, air

Mining operation continues amidst the varieties of challenges to
people’s life, livelihood, and the ecological set up of the area of
its operation. Because of its ill effect, mining project very often
generates opposition from civil society. India’s North East
which has vast reserve of mineral resources also experiences the
same. This is mainly observed in case of its three major mining
operations in the region. These are: coal mining in Assam,
Uranium and Limestone mining in Meghalaya. It is to be noted
that the region has the potentiality to meet most of its energy
requirement for the continuity of its growth centered path of
development for the country as a whole. Though because of the
communication barrier the region is a late addition in its
different sorts of operation related to development and
industrialization, the region has made lot of hue and cry for its
mining operation in Meghalaya, mainly for Uranium and
limestone, recently being the rat hole mining of coal. All these
made it necessary to study the people’s opposition to mining
operation in the region in terms of the issues involved and
strategies followed and the success it has made in its goal. The
paper is based on three case studies: First: coal mining in
Assam, second Uranium mining in Meghalaya and third being
the Limestone mining in the same state.
The paper is based on both secondary as well as primary sources
of information. The secondary data are collected from different
published works while the primary data are collected by the
author from the field itself. A case study method has been
followed to understand the nature of activism in North East
India.
A general treatise on people’s protest against
mining
Most of the mining operations are very often found to face
opposition and protests from different corners mainly from the
environmentalists and local people who are affected by mining.
pollution, pollution of river etc. While environmental impact is
one of the major reasons of rising protests against mining,
displacement of indigenous people is a very common ground for
which mining is opposed highly all over the world. This is true
of all environmental movements over the world. As mining
operations are increasing to cater the need of the growing
economy, the sizes of the mines are also increasing. To
Fernandes and Asif, the size of coal mines has grown from an
average of 150 acres in 1960s to an average of 800 acres in
1980s and to some 1500 acres today. The increasing size of
mines mainly coal mines have more displacement effect in
comparison to the past. Moreover the rehabilitation and
resettlement of the displaces are also not done adequately. Very
often the compensation given to the affected people is very
meager. The compensation in terms of giving job to the
diaplaces is also very unsatisfactory. This can be observed in
case of Karanpura village of Jharkhand where 10.18 percent of
the 6265 families are given jobs in the mining sector1.
The impact of mining and the reactions to it in India is wide and
far. In their study on impact of coal mining in Damodar river
basin R.K.Tiwary and B.B. Dhar2 maintained that exploitation
of coal mine and related industries have exerted a great impact
on the environment of the basin. Besides effecting the
environment, mining also leads to displacement of people
mainly indigenous people. According to T.E. Downig mining
has displaced 2.55 million people between 1950-19903 in India.
Because of these multiple causes mining very often face
opposition from different groups. The recent report of protest by
Green groups in Australia against its largest coalmine in
Queensland4 is an example of activism against mining.
Environmentalists claimed that the proposed mine will damage
ground water supplies and contribute to climate change. It is
estimated that the mine will have a carbon emission more than
the total carbon emission by Denmark. The Green Groups thus
threatening legal action to prevent the mine to go ahead. The
non-ferrous metal mining in Guatemala5 is yet another example

International Science Congress Association 65

International Research Journal of Environment Sciences______________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414
Vol. 3(11), 65-70, November (2014)
of people’s protest against mining. Because of its negative
impact on environment and poor people engaged in agriculture,
the civil society of Guatemala has opposed vehemently against
mining operation in Guatemala.
In India, Samanta, an NGO, organized tribals to protest mining
on reserved land. The famous Samanta judgement is thus the
victory of people’s movement against state’s intrusion into tribal
land. In Karnataka, Samaj Parovartan Samudaya (SPS) became
successful to bring a halt to illegal ore mining in 2011 and since
then it is working with the community to reclaim their
livelihood and environment. The recent example of people’s
protest against mining is the protest by the 8000 villagers in
Niyamgiri hills in Orissa, in India6. Vedanta, the London Stock
exchange listed company faced stark opposition from the
villagers. The proposed project is likely to affect the project area
in various ways. The Kondhs, the tribal people living in the
forest, believe the mountain range as sacred and Niyam Raja
who is their god is the provider of all essentials to them. The
villagers alleged that the operation of Vedanta will come on the
way of their religious and cultural rights. In a move the Supreme
Court ordered that the right of the tribals must be protected by
the Odissa government.
India’s North East popularly known for its pristine beauty and
dense forest, also faces environmental and livelihood threat for
indigenous people because of mining. The region came under
mining operation during British rule in the last quarter of
nineteenth century when coal was discovered in upper part of
Assam. The exploration and extraction of coal in Tirap district
of Assam is followed by coal extraction from Meghalaya. The
coal extraction in Tirap district faced protest mainly after
nationalization of Assam Railway and Trading Company in
1973. Besides extraction of coal that led to protest from
different concerned groups, the proposed uranium mining in
Meghalaya raised lot of protest from people. The recent addition
of Lafarge chapter on limestone is yet another story of mining
project, environmental degradation and people’s protest.
Following discussion focuses on the mining in north East India
and people’s protest in the region.
Mineral and Mining in North East India
North East India, a geographical region comprising of eight
states namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Sikkim and Tripura holds a reserve of coal, natural
gas, oil and limestone. Assam and Meghalaya has a large
reserve of what is called ‘Black Gold’ i.e., coal. The region has
a small fraction of its total area under lease for mines. It is
reported that North East India has 395 millions of coal deposits
apart from Uranium, petroleum, limestone and other minerals.
According to the Indian Bureau of Mines 1991 and director of
Economics and statistics, 2003, quoted in Fernandes7, coal
mining leases in Assam is 3126.98 acres while that of limestone
is 2214.14 acres of Area.
Mining in North East India started with the discovery of
presence of coals in the Margherita hill ranges when it started
International Science Congress Association
Int. Res. J. Environment Sci.
the exploration of natural resources in different parts in the
world to feed the energy need of industrialization in the west.
Along with the prospect on tea production and the respective
trade on tea, another prospect that came in to their sight was the
exploration of mineral resources in upper Assam, more
specifically of coal in the Patkoi hill range of Assam. Initially
coal was discovered in the Makum coal field which gradually
reached to the adjacent areas of Patkoi hill ranges. Though the
commercial riverine dispatch was started in October 1883, the
Digboi railway workshop dispatch of coal in true sense started
only on February 18, 18848, the day the first passenger train was
opened.
Initially with coal mining operation in upper Assam, the mining
operation continued to increase in rigour and vigour in different
parts of North east India. Though the initial story was a story of
exploration, excavation and experimentation, the later story was
the rising consciousness and protest which was many times
generated by the felt discomfort by the mining affected people
and sometimes by the environmentalists, activists and
academicians of the region. This can be understood by study of
three specific cases of movements against mining in North East
India.
Movement against open cast mining in Ledo
Margherita, Upper Assam
Activism against coal mining in upper Assam is perhaps one of
the oldest of protest against mining in North East India. The
coal discovered in Makum, in upper Assam has started the
excavation process around and gradually Ledo became famous
for the coal fields present in Assam . Coal was required by the
Railways for its use as fuel for locomotives and workshops,
traffic etc. Tea gardens and timber plants also required coal to
generate power. Coal has received growing demand not only to
meet the needs of the local industries, but also to meet the
demand of industries outside the region and country. To meet
the growing demand and to avoid the wood fuel, different
collieries were set up in different places at Namdang in 1885,
Ledo New West in 1903, Baragolai in 1909, Tipongpani in 1904
and Namdang Dip in 1904. All these mines were operated under
the administrative control of Assam Railway and Trading
Company till the date of Nationalization on May 1, 1973, under
the control of “Coal Mines Authority Limited”, a holding
company on first day of November 1975. Since then the Makum
coal field of Margherita area has been placed under North
Eastern Coal fields controlled by Coal India Limited.
There are presently six working coal mines in North Eastern
Coal fields, Margherita and an exploratory mine at Simsang at
Garo hills of Meghalaya. The six working mines of North
Eastern Coal fields are Tipong Colliery, Baragoloi Colliery,
Ledo Colliery, Jeypore colliery, Tikak Colliery and Tirap
Colliery, out of which Tirap and Tikak are open cast mines and
rests are underground mines.
While the underground mining is relatively a more environment
66
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences______________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414
Vol. 3(11), 65-70, November (2014)
friendly method, the open cast mining causes major scars to
nature. Since underground mining is more expensive and has
some limitation in Assam’s soil condition, open cast mining has
been the main method used by the mining companies such as
National Mining, Ashok Mining, Upadhyaya Mining engaged in
mining operations in Margherita.
There cannot be any doubt about the harmful effect of mining in
the surrounding areas. The unsystematic and haphazard manner
of coal mining followed in the Makum coal field has adverse
effects on the surrounding eco system. Drainage of mine water
from Lakowa and Geleki which is also known as ‘gaspani’ in
local language has damaged thousands of acres of crop fields
causing them unsuitable for cultivating these lands.
Though there are a number of protests against the destructive
method of coal mining from the very time of nationalization of
coal mining, no systematic and organized protests has been
made to make it a successful movement.
In the early 1980s when some students went to study the
environmental condition in the coal mining areas of Patkoi hill,
they were struck by the destructive effects of open cast coal
mining on the land and people of nearby villages. These
destructive effects were documented by the Students Science
Society, an organization based in Guwahati. These reports were
later published in the local newspapers to attract the attention of
the people of Assam. Public meetings were organized in the
affected villages by the society. But they failed to get mass
support as most of the villagers were directly or indirectly
dependent on the industry. Besides the mafias who patronised
the mining activity also indirectly threatened the villagers
whenever they tried to protest against mining. As has been said
by Monoj Patwary, the then student leader of the tour, “There is
a nexus of Police, Administration and Mafia for which doing
anything against coal mining was a risky task. We could
document everything only when we could arrange to be a part of
educational tour of Jorhat Engineering College.”
Despite the lack of support from the villagers, the protest
initiated by the students managed to attract the attention of the
State Government and an enquiry was ordered on the
environmental condition of the region. This response from the
government encouraged the Student’s Science Society and to
make the protest stronger they called upon the All Assam
Students Union (AASU), Yuva Chatra Porisad (YCP) etc. to
join hands with them.
Faced with pressure from the different student’s organizations
the then Minister of Environment and Forest Mrs. Maneka
Gandhi ordered an enquiry which brought out the destructive
affect of mining on the environment. In response to the findings
some measures were taken to restore the ecological condition of
the region. Some plantations were done and the pits were filled
by soil. Coal India also gave some compensation to the village
people displaced by the mining operation. The movement
against mining however failed to last. The fear of reprisal by the
local mafias and the lack of support from people who were
International Science Congress Association
Int. Res. J. Environment Sci.
dependent on mining industry led to the shelving of the
movement by the students.
Not much voice was raised for a year. However following a
massive landslide in Number 1 Malugaon village, on July 7,
2001, the people of the affected villages were frightened that
more landslides may occur any time. The landslide had brought
down the primary school and a dozen hutments. Thirty eight
families were displaced to Paninal of Ledo. Though people of
Tirap tribal belt nursed a feeling of deprivation generated by
mining in that area, but the incidence of Malugaon has created a
permanent fear in people’s mind in the surrounding villages.
The Malugaon incident not only shook the mind of the local
people, it had also shaken the mind of the intellectuals all over
the region. In September 2001, a committee under the name
“Ledo Open Cast Mining Protection Committee” (LOCMPC)
was formed by some human rights and environment
conservation activists in the state to make the movement more
effective. The main leader of the organization, Mr. Durlav
Mohanta with some environmentalists and other members made
an extensive study to assess and document the effect of mining
on the lives of the people. It has been observed by the
organization that the mining operations had affected the crop
fields of the villagers because of the acid water coming out of
the mines. And the burden of coal in the hill slopes which lead
to the flow of coal and acid in the fields mainly in the rainy
days. The drainage of water carrying acid in the Tirap river has
led to the reduction in the growth of fishes in the river.
The committee had got extensive support from different
organizations of tribal people of Patkoi hill range having
different kinds of interests namely Patkoi Pahar People’s
Protection Committee, Ledo Sonali Pather Porichalona
Somittee. But the organization soon became defunct due to the
clash of interest of the Ledo Open Cast Mining Protection
Committee and Tirap Autonomous District Council Demand
Committee and Patkoi Pahar People’s Protection Committee,
the latter two were more concerned with people’s right on land
and tribal identity issue and the former specifically with
envirnmental issues.
Though incorporations of different interests are very much
common in the new social movements, which involves concern
with issues other than economic or typical class based issues;
the clash of interests often makes the movements to lose its
rigour. At the same time, the involvement of Tirap Autonomous
District Council Demand Commitee and Patkoi Pahar People’s
Protection Committee also widened the dimension of the
movement. The Tirap Autonomous District Council Demand
Committee has been demanding for the formation of Tirap
Autonomous District Council including Tirap, Makum,
Buridihing and its adjacent areas of Margherita and Digboi
Legislative Assembly of upper Assam. The region is the home
of several tribal who consider themselves as indigenous. The
people of the region had experienced a feeling of deprivation
and exploitation which became more intense after the
introduction of different projects that demanded heavy
exploitation of nature by the government. Such activities by the
67
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences______________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414
Vol. 3(11), 65-70, November (2014)
state intensified people’s fear for their rights and subsistence.
This fear was strongly communicated in the Souvenir of the
Frontier Tribes (Simanto Janajatiya Abhibartana). As has been
mentioned in the Souvenir, the Tenth Amendment of the Land
and Revenue Act of 1886 made in 1947 give the tribal legal
right to the land of the region which came under the Excluded
Areas during the British period. However gradual migration by
the non tribal from outside into the region amassing vast tracks
of land for their tea and citronella cultivation led to a feeling of
threat to livelihood and land among the people most of whom
are peasant by occupation. They realized that such kind of
exploitation can only be stopped if they possess strong
administrative power and self determination. The creation of
Tirap Autonomous District Council Demand Committee with its
demand for the formation of Tirap Autonomous District Council
was an outcome of this threat perception and fear of losing their
land and livelihood. However loss of land was not the only issue
of concern for TADCDC. The committee was equally
concerned about the increasing degradation of the environment
caused by open cast mining in the region. To strengthen their
fight against the deleterious effect on the environment by open
cast mining the TADCDC joined forces with Ledo Open Cast
Mining Protection Committee but it failed to achieve its
objective because of the conflict of interests. In another move
TADCDC joined hands with Patkoi Pahar People’s Protection
Committee (PPPPC) which also protested against open cast
mining. The organization has been protesting against the mining
along with other organizations like All Assam Tribal Sangha,
Tribal Students’ Federation, Assam, Ledo Sonali Pather
Parichalona Samity etc. Like TADCDC, PPPPC also did not
have environment as the sole concern of its protest. Along with
its demand to stop the excavation of coal by North Eastern Coal
Fields, it also demanded the issue of land patta to the tribal
people residing in the Makum Mouza, halting of eviction of
encroachers from these villages etc., which shows that this
organization is also concerned with the right of the tribal people
to their land.
From the above discussion it has been seen that though there
were protests against the environmental degradation in the
region caused by the destructive practice of coal mining it could
not generate much success due to the diversity of interests of the
different action groups. While organisations like Students’
Science Society and Ledo Open Cast Mining Protection
Committee were primarily interested on the issue of damage to
the environment and people’s life, the TADCDC tried to
combine environmental issues with political autonomy and right
to self determination. Such conflicting interests have reduced
the ability of this movement to emerge as a state level
movement. Moreover there were no coordinated efforts to bring
different groups under common umbrella which also came in
the way of development of the movement as a popular one and
thus also came in the way of its success.
The uranium mining imbroglio
The proposed mining of Uranium has created a major
contradiction in the region. This yellow cake, the most precious
International Science Congress Association
Int. Res. J. Environment Sci.
of metals generated a lot of protests and demonstrations when it
was proposed to be extracted and a mining project was
established in the region. Though the deal was primarily
between Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) and the
Government of Meghalaya, the project has generated lot of
protests from NGOs, opposition parties, students union and
local people. When UCIL received the permission from the
headman of the uranium rich village on the promise of
development, the Khasi Students Union had made an appeal to
the village headman to withdraw the permission9.
It has been reported that the AMD found the yellowcake in
Meghalaya in Meghalaya before 1991 in its West Khasi Hills.
In the name of samples they took vast quantities of ore running
into hundreds of tons. Now the Uranium Corporation of India
Limited has decided to acquire the land for the purpose.
To stop this effort, the protesters of the region had written a
letter to the Prime Minister and the DAE was made to respond
for the same. The reason showed by the DAE was removing the
uranium which is the source of radiation in this area.
Indeed the UCIL had planned to have the Domiasiat mining
operational within four or five years. The UCIL also received
the permission for beginning mining of uranium in Domiasiat
in Meghalaya, the opposition from the local Khasi tribe had
prevented UCIL from developing the mine. The uranium project
in Khasi hills brings forth the competing claims between the
state government on the one hand and District Council on the
other. The Khasi District Council states that as per the Sixth
Schedule to the Constitution it has the ownership right to the
land and no one be of state government or federal government
can acquire val. The district council had permitted UCIL for
conducting an exploratory survey and did not permit UCIL for
commercial operation of mining. On another occasion, the Hill
State People’s Democratic Party (HSPDP), which is a
constituent of the ruling Meghalaya Democratic Alliance
coalition, had opposed the decision of the Government to begin
extraction of Uranium with a view that it would endanger the
health of the people of Meghalaya. HSPDP president
H.S.Lyngdoh observed that Uranium extraction would not only
produce radiation effects on people but also on cattle.
Strong opposition also came from the Meghalaya People’s
Human Rights Council (MPHRC) on the ground that radiation
from the mineral would pose health hazards to people besides
affecting the environment.
In defense of the government, the Chief Secretary said that the
state government was not at all involved in the entire process
when the UCIL conducted the geo-physical survey at
Domiasiat. The Secretary of Mining and Geology, S.S Gupta
stated that the department would soon submit a proposal to the
Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs( CCEA) to set up a
high level committee that would compose of some Ministers
and senior Government officials, for examining all issues
68
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences______________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414
Vol. 3(11), 65-70, November (2014)
related to the project which will include issue of health and
would recommend the terms and conditions for any mining
lease , if government decides to do so in future. It was known
that the managing director of UCIL was ready to pay whatever
compensation required for the land acquired by the UCIL. The
UCIL also stated that the project will not be started without the
consent of the local people.
With a view to get the consent of the local people and to
impress them about the safety of uranium mining a visit to the
Uranium mining site of Jaduguda in Bihar was organized. The
team comprised the Ministers of Mining and Geology and
Labour along with the representatives of local NGO namely
MPHRC, Hynriewtrep Environment Status Preservation
Organisation (HESPO). Contrary to UCIL’s expectation, the
team said that the mining of uranium has rather resulted in
widespread health problems in the surrounding areas of mines.
These organizations organized had collectively organized a
protesting the mining operation on the very occasion of ‘World
Anti-Uraniom Day’. As a result the chief minister of Meghalaya
announced that the decision on mining would be taken only
when all aspects of its operation will be examined thoroughly
including the health and safety, while the UCIL maintained that
it has got consent of the landowner of the proposed mining area.
Notwithstanding this assurance, the student’s organizations such
as KSU and North East Students’ Organization protested against
the proposed Uranium mining and on December 14, 2004, a
general strike was called by KSU. Besides a coordination
Committee against Uranium Mining was formed which
comprised of various organizations as KSU, Western Youth
Welfare Organisation (WYWO), MPHRC and Lai Lyngdoh
Welfare Organisation (LYWO). This committee decided to
launch a movement in the region to prevent the mining. The
Committee decided to hold a public rally at to highlight the
negative impact of the project.
On April 12, 2005, the organizations and the landowners of the
area erected a gate at Domiasiat, where the mining operation
was proposed for a check on any unauthorized kind of entry into
the area. They also warned the people against entering into the
gate erected in the entry into the proposed area of project
without seeking prior permission of the land owners who had set
up the gate. For the protesters the gate was also symbol of
people’s protest against the project. The Dorbar Shnong (village
council) of Domiasiat also extended full support to the protest.
After the visit to Jaduguda the representative of the Government
maintained that the team was unable to find any negative effect
of uranium in Jaduguda, but the tribal council leaders stated
otherwise. The leaders also condemned the stand taken by the
Khasi Hill Autonomous District Council (KHADC) and also
maintained that the land owner of the villages and people should
go by the opinion of the unbiased experts. They also did not
appeal to the people for making a judicious decision since the
UCIL nor has the State Government clarified about the
International Science Congress Association
Int. Res. J. Environment Sci.
rehabilitation and compensation of the families.
In the verge of protests from different corners the Langrin–War-
San Lyngdoh Development Organisation (LWLDO) opganised
a big rally at Wahkaji village near Domiaset attended by people
of several villages which decided to welcome the proposed
Uranium project. The organization composed of Ranghah
Shnongs and headman i.e., Sirdars of the villages. Thus the
mining of uranium too brings into forefront the conflicting
interest of state government and local people and also between
local organisations. The protest has two major grounds; first is
the concern for ecological balance and the threat of health
hazard anticipated from the proposed mining and the second
being the issue of displacement and rehabilitation measure as
nothing is clear from the state government for the relocation and
compensation to the affected families. Though both the local
people and state government are at loggerheads regarding the
project, the protest has got a major credit for its sustained effort
aimed at putting a stop to the project. This has created serious
problems for the state government to carry out its preparatory
work thus stalling the start of the project.
The coal mining in Tirap district of Assam is yet another issue
that invites protests and movement by local people. Besides,
the presence of a number of stone quarries in different parts of
North East India has also raised lot of hue and cry at the local
level.
Lafarge: another chapter in North East
Lafarge, world’s largest cement producer has faced opposition
from environmentalists and local people and people’s
organization for its mining operation in Meghalaya. As
Meghalaya is known for its limestone reserve, which is
estimated to be 2,165 million tones, the French industrial
concern has therefore brought a set up for mining operation in
the state in its Khasi hills district which is its one of the different
mining set up of the company in the country along with states
like Rajasthan, Andra Pradesh etc. The French giant is to supply
limestone to its $255 million cement plant at Chhatak in
Bangladesh. The arrangement is that the limestone mined in
Meghalaya will be transferred by a 17 km conveyor belt from
Meghalaya to the Chhatak plant.
The project has received enormous criticism10 from
environmentalists, NGOs and indigenous people. The first
objection was that it came on the way of exercising land right by
native people. The Khasi people are recognized as an
indigenous community and have sole right over land. Hence the
land was not free for any external holding or operation.
Secondly the villagers from the adjacent areas have documented
the ill effects of Lafarge mining. Shella river and Phrangkaruh
river have their source in the project drying up. The Shella river
is affected due to powerful blasting along with the threat to
aquatic water. The fishes in the two rivers died due to large-
scale deforestation. Besides it was also seen that the mining
69
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences______________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414
Vol. 3(11), 65-70, November (2014)
operation has impacted the livelihood of the local people who
were dependent on that land in two ways: first it incorporated
agricultural land and second it is viewed that if the mining by
Lafarge continues there will be nothing left to the local people
who were also dependent on mining operation for their survival.
It is to be noted that limestone mining in Nongtrai dates from
1885.
The activists and villagers under the banner of Shella Action
Committee filed a petition to Supreme Court of India alleging
that Lafarge is mining on forest land and did not have the
required clearances. It was alleged that LUMPL obtained
Environmental clearances by falsely declaring areas covered
with natural forest as waste land. It also alleged that the EIA for
obtaining environmental clearances was not based on scientific
study.
Local activists found the move as a conspiracy to alienate the
native Khasi tribals. The Action committee also filed a PIL in
Meghalaya High Court for the same.
Mining by Lafarge in Meghalaya became important for two
reasons. First it will earn revenue to the government. Second it
will lead to the bilateral relationship smoother between India
and Bangladesh. Third it will give a boost to South East Asian
economy in the purview of Look East policy.
Lafarge had multiple credits that way. Though on fifth
February, 2010, the apex court stopped the Lafarge to carry out
mining operation in Meghalaya by saying that mining in the
environmentally sensitive zone cannot be permitted, the same
court lifted its 17 month- old stay on mining by Lafarge in
Meghalaya. The revised environmental clearances from MoEF
given by Lafarge was also upheld by the court The SC thus took
decision on the site clearance by MoEF of 18.06.1999, EIA
clearance of 9.08.2001 along with the revised environmental
clearance dated 19.04.2010 and the stage I forest clearance
dated 22.04.2010. Besides the court also maintained that the
limestone mining in these areas has been going on for centuries
and a scientific approach by Lafarge is likely not to affect the
people in the area.
The Lafarge chapter thus shows the conflict between the growth
oriented development paradigm and a paradigm of sustainability
and environmental justice the project though is aimed to give a
boost to south Asian economy as well as national economy in its
turn, it has a direct impact on the ecology and livelihood of the
people of the project area.
Conclusion
A close examination of the people’s protests over the mining
projects show two major concerns: One, the effect of mining on
the physical environment and health of local people which has
been repeatedly spelt by the studies made by different
researches, and two, the issue of compensation and relocation of
International Science Congress Association
Int. Res. J. Environment Sci.
the affected people which depicts the issue of human rights over
land and livelihood. The mining operations in North East India
thus go through similar experience as is found in case of the rest
of the states of India as well as the world. The region being
highly inhabited by tribal people further suffers for meeting the
need of compensation for each tribal family as the land belong
to community and the distribution of land is highly made on
communal ownership basis. As a result estimating the loss
incurred by the individual family is very difficult and
compensation for such loss is more complex. Again since the
tribal land cannot be given to any private body the tribal people
feel the move for mining operation as a conspiracy to alienate
the tribal people from their forest land. This needs to be further
understood by keeping the very nature of the society and the
institution associated in the entire process.
References
1. Fernandes Walter, Mines, Mining and Displacement in
India in Gurdeep Singh et al Managing the Social and
Environmental Consequences of Coal Mining in India,
Dhanbad, The Indian School of Mines University, 333-
344 (2007)
2. Tiwary R.K. and Dhar B.B., Environmental Pollution
from Coal Mining Activities in Damodar River Basin,
India, Mine Water and the Environment, 3, 1-10 (1994)
3. Downig T.E., Avoiding New Poverty : Mining Induced
Displacement and Resettlement, IIED and WBCSD,
London, Research paper, 58, (2002)
4. Green Groups Explore Legal Action to Halt Massive
Queensland Coalmine, The guardian, (2013)
5. William N Holden and Daniel R., Jacobson Civil
Society’s Opposition to Nonferous Metals Mining in
Guatemala in Voluntas, 19, 325-350 (2008)
6. Jitendra Das, Villagers intensify protest against Vedanta
in.reuters.com/article/2009/01/17/idIndia-
37504320090117 visited on 13/11/2014, (2014)
7. Fernandes Walter, Mines, Mining and Displacement in
India’ in Gurdeep Singh et al Managing the Social and
Environmental Consequences of Coal Mining in India,
Dhanbad, The Indian School of Mines University, 333-
344, (2007)
8. Dutta Ranjit, North Eastern Coal fields at a Glance in
Dihing Patkoi Festival, a souvenir, 59 (2003)
9. New Uranium Mining Projects, Meghalaya, India cited in
www.wise-uranium.org/imprint.htm visited on
13/11/2014 (2014)
10. Lyngdoh G.W., Why Lafarge Limestone put on hold ?,
Meghalaya Times, (2014)
70